MEMORANDUM TO: District of ... - DC Office of Planning · 28/11/2016 · 1100 4th Street, S.W., Suite E650, Washington, DC 20024 phone 202-442-7600, fax 202-442-7638 planning.dc.gov

1100 4th

Street, S.W., Suite E650, Washington, DC 20024 phone 202-442-7600, fax 202-442-7638 planning.dc.gov Find us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @OPinDC

MEMORANDUM

TO: District of Columbia Zoning Commission

FROM: Jennifer Steingasser, Deputy Director Development Review and Historic Preservation

DATE: November 28, 2016

SUBJECT: Final Report for ZC Case No. 16-11, Consolidated Planned Unit Development

(PUD) and PUD Related Map Amendment from R-4 and C-2-A to R-5-B and C-

2-B for Square 2890, part of Lot 849 (Bruce Monroe)

I. OP RECOMMENDATION

The proposed PUD would facilitate the development of the subject property as Phase 1 of the

redevelopment of Park Morton, an aging public housing complex, into a mixed-income

community with a variety of housing types without having to relocate existing residents out of

the neighborhood and away from their community. A variety of housing types are proposed,

including senior housing designed to address the specific needs of that population, low income

housing, and market rate housing. All would have access to a future private park at the south-

east corner of the lot, to be developed by others.

The site is designed with its greatest densities along Georgia Avenue, similar to other buildings

already constructed or approved, with the potential to contribute to the rejuvenation of Georgia

Avenue with an increase in pedestrian activity. Lower density townhouses are proposed on the

western portion of the site, in acknowledgement of the long standing row houses defining that

part of the neighborhood.

The application is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would further many of its

policies, while realizing the Council approved Park Morton Redevelopment Initiative Plan.

Therefore, the Office of Planning (OP) recommends that the Commission APPROVE the

subject application. OP has advised that applicant that, at the public hearing, the applicant

should:

1. Document flexibility for the provision of 8 non-garage compact parking spaces for the

townhouses;

2. Provide additional, enlarged detail for the townhouses and additional detail on the

apartment building demonstrating its residential character; and

3. Provide additional information on the façade materials proposed.

http://www.planning.dc.gov/

ZC Case No. 16-11, Bruce Monroe

November 28, 2016 Page 2 of 12

II. APPLICATION

At its public meeting on July 25, 2016, the Commission set down for a public hearing the subject

application for a consolidated PUD for a mixed-income 271-unit residential community

consisting of:

8 townhouses;

76 one-bedroom senior citizen apartments; and a

187-unit apartment building

Thirty-three percent of the units would be public housing, 41 percent affordable and 26 percent

market rate.

As the application was set down by the Commission prior to the effective date of the new ZR-16

zoning regulations, the ZR-58 regulations apply. The application includes a request for a PUD-

related map amendment to rezone the site from R-4 and C-2-A to R-5-B and C-2-B.

A summary of the Zoning Comments from the setdown meeting with the applicant’s responses

can be found on pages 4 and 5 of this report.

This application is concurrent with PUD application ZC 16-12 (Park Morton Public Housing

site), phases 2 and 3 of the redevelopment of the Park Morton Public Housing Complex. The

subject application is for Phase 1.

III. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION

Location: Square 2890, Part of Lot 849

Ward and ANC: Ward 1, ANC 1A

Applicants: Park View Community Partners and the District of Columbia

Housing Authority

PUD-Related Zoning: R-4 and C-2-A to R-5-B and C-2-B

Property Size: 77,531 square feet (1.78 acres)

Proposal: 1. A mixed-use building consisting of 189 residential units;

2. A 76-unit senior citizen apartment building;

3. Eight row houses; and

4. 4,545 square feet of retail/community service space.

Properties surrounding the site include:

North: Across Irving Street, row houses and low rise commercial buildings.



South: Across Columbia Road, flats, row and semi-detached dwellings. At the corner of

Georgia Avenue and Columbia Road is a commercial building.

East: Across Georgia Avenue, office and retail uses.

West: Row houses

The area of the PUD is shown below within solid black lines. The northwest corner of Georgia

Avenue and Columbia Road is proposed to be a private park to be developed separately by others

and is not a part of this application.

The site was formerly developed as Bruce-Monroe Elementary School. It is located less than

one-half of a mile from the Columbia Heights Metrorail station on the Yellow and Green lines.

IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION – CHANGES SINCE SETDOWN

A complete discussion of the proposed development can be found in the OP Setdown Report

dated July 15, 2016 (ZC Case 16-11, Exhibit 14). Since setdown the applicant has revised the

plans and buildings to respond to comments from the Commission and the Office of Planning.

Those revisions include:

Adding elevator access from the southwest corner of the senior building to provide direct

access for the residents of that building to the future park;

Providing increased detail on the elevation drawings;

Submitting perspective drawings contrasting the proposed buildings with existing



surrounding development; and

Providing refined detail of the senior building courtyard.

V. COMMISSION AND OFFICE OF PLANNING SETDOWN COMMENTS

On November 15, 2016, the applicant filed revised plans (Exhibits 35A1 through 35A8) in

response to comments received at the Commission’s public hearing on July 25, 2016. A

prehearing statement was filed on November 15, 2016 (Exhibit 34). A summary of the

Commission’s comments with the applicant’s responses is listed below.

Commission / OP Comment Applicant’s Response OP Analysis

1. Need better drawings.

The apartment building

looks commercial and the

townhouses are not well

developed.

The apartment building has been

redesigned and perspective

drawings add different views of

the building. Additional detailed

drawings will be provided at the

public hearing.

The apartment building includes

balconies and windows of a variety

of sizes and the aerial view of the

building with its large courtyard

evoke a residential feel to the

building.

2. Can the District monitor

affordable housing in

excess of IZ requirements?

The applicant would register all

IZ and ADU units with DHCD.

Yes. IZ and ADUs are tracked by

DHCD.

3. Need more information on

consistency with the

Comprehensive Plan,

especially for the 90-foot

high building.

The applicant noted that the

FLUM does not portray density

or use for the site, as Local

Public Facilities indicates

ownership but not use or density.

Therefore, recommended

densities and uses are drawn

from surrounding properties. For

the 90-foot building the applicant

cites an approved PUD, not yet

built, at Georgia Avenue and

Morton Street, and other

buildings of similar size, either

existing or approved, along the

corridor.

Additional analysis is provided by

OP in Section VII of this report.

The proposed housing types and

densities draw from existing

surrounding development. The

townhouses on the western edge of

the site are similar to the existing

row houses. Several apartment

buildings of a similar height have

been constructed or approved by the

Zoning Commission along Georgia

Avenue. The proposal would not be

out of character with other Georgia

Avenue development.

4. What is the “local public

facility”?

Local public facility indicates

ownership by the local

government and typically

improved as things such as parks

and schools, but does not indicate

density or use.

As “local public facility” indicates

ownership, the proposed use would

continue in that manner as the

District of Columbia is an applicant

for the application under office of

the Deputy Mayor for Economic

Development.

5. Need perspectives from

existing development

across the street. How will

it all interrelate?

Perspectives were provided from

across the street depicting

existing and proposed buildings.

The perspectives provide street-

views around the site, better

indicating how the proposed

buildings would interrelate with the

neighborhood.



Commission / OP Comment Applicant’s Response OP Analysis

6. Add solar panels to the

townhouses.

Applicant informed OP that

provision of solar panels is under

consideration.

DOEE informed OP that it supports

the addition of solar panels to the

townhouses and that they should be

provided. OP supports this change.

7. Need materials that are

sustainable and will last.

Masonry materials are proposed

on all of the buildings. High-

quality fiber cement panels are

also proposed for the senior and

the apartment buildings, with

fiber cement siding proposed for

the townhouses. Material

samples will be presented at the

hearing.

The applicant provided a materials

legend for each building. Material

samples will be provided at the

hearing.

8. Why is the park located

where it is?

The location of the park is based

on the desires of the community

to allow for a park with “eyes-

on-the-street” and to not bury the

park within the site behind the

apartment buildings.

The community expressed

preference at community

engagement meetings held from

October 2015 through March 2016,

including meetings organized by

Park View Community Partners,

DMPED and the DC Housing

Authority.

Redevelopment of the site would be Phase 1 of the replacement of Park Morton. Construction is

proposed to be phased to avoid displacement by allowing current Park Morton tenants the ability

to occupy new units prior to the demolition of their buildings, as described more fully in OP’s

setdown report (Exhibit 14, Section IV, page 34).

VI. ZONING AND FLEXIBILITY

Row Houses and Semi-Detached

R-4 R-5-B R-5-B PUD Proposal Height (max.) 35 feet 50 feet 60 feet 40 feet FAR (max.) - Semi-Detached N/A 1.8 3.0 1.7 - Row Houses N/A 1.8 3.0 1.2 and 1.4 Lot Occupancy (max.) - Semi-Detached 60% 60% 60% 64%* - Row Houses 40% 40% 40% 43 and 53%* Rear Yard (min.) 20 feet 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet Side Yard (min.) -Semi-Detached

10 feet

10 feet

10 feet

3.0 and 9.25 feet*

Parking (min.) N/A 1 per unit or 8 1 per unit or 8 8 compact spaces**

* Flexibility requested

** Flexibility to permit compact parking spaces not in conformance with Sec. 2115 of the

Zoning Regulations is needed, as described below.



Apartment Building

R-4 C-2-A C-2-B C-2-B PUD Proposal Height (max.) 35 feet 50 feet 65 feet 90 feet 90 feet FAR (max.) N/A 2.5 3.5 6.0 5.8 Lot Occupancy (max.)

40% 60% 80% 80% 72%

Open Court (min.)

30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 60 feet

Rear Yard (min.)

20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 5 feet*

Side Yard (min.)

8 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet*

Parking (min.) -Residential N/A 95 62 62 99 spaces -Retail N/A 2 2 2 4 spaces Loading (min.) -Berth N/A 1@30/1@55 ft. 1@30/1@55 ft. 1@30/1@55 ft. 2@30 feet** -Platform N/A 1@100/1@200 sf 1@100/1@200 sf 1@100/1@200 sf 1@100 sf** -Delivery N/A 1@20 feet 1@20 feet 1@20 feet 1@20 feet** GAR N/A 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30


** Shared with Senior Building. Flexibility requested.

Senior Building

R-4 R-5-B R-5-B PUD Proposal Height (max.) 35 feet 50 feet 60 feet 60 feet FAR (max.) N/A 1.8 3.0 3.9*

Lot Occupancy (max.) 40% 60% 60% 68%* Open Court (min.) 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 43.75 feet Rear Yard (min.) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 8 feet* Side Yard (min.) Parking (min.) 13 spaces 13 spaces 13 spaces 13 spaces Loading (min.) 15 feet 15 feet 4 feet* -Berth N/A 1@30/1@55 feet 1@30/1@55 feet 2@30 feet** -Platform N/A 1@100/1@200 sf 1@100/1@200 sf 1@100 sf** -Delivery N/A 1@20 feet 1@20 feet 1@ 20 feet** GAR N/A 0.40 0.40 0.40


** Shared with apartment building. Flexibility requested.



Flexibility:

a. Multiple Buildings on a Single Record Lot: Regulations permit only one principal

building on a record lot, and that each principal building have frontage on a public street.

The eight townhouses are proposed to be located on one record lot on a private street

Although the south side of the lot would front on Columbia Road, allowing one of the

semi-detached dwellings to front a public street, the remaining seven units would face a

private street. However, each of the townhouse units would face a street that would be

open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, allowing for vehicular and pedestrian access to

those units.

b. Side Yards: Regulations require one side yard for semi-detached dwellings (end

townhouse units) and one side yard is required for each of the multi-family buildings.

Relief is requested to reduce the size of the side yards for the semi-detached dwellings,

the apartment building and the senior building. Reducing the width of the side yard for

the semi-detached dwelling at the corner of the private street and Columbia Road and the

apartment buildings facing Irving Street would allow for more continuity in the street

walls, consistent with existing development.

c. Rear Yards: Regulations require rear yards for the apartment building and the senior

building. Relief is requested to reduce the size of rear yards for those buildings to enable

the applicant to increase the size of the adjoining private park that is not included in the

PUD. Increasing the size of the adjoining private park would benefit the entire

community as a whole, allowing for additional open space not associated with the

apartment buildings. As the two apartment buildings back onto the private park the

reduce size of their rear yards would not be readily apartment.

d. Lot Occupancy: Regulations permit a maximum 60 percent lot occupancy. Relief is

required to permit a lot occupancy of 68 percent for the senior apartment building, 64

percent for the row houses and 53 percent for the semi-detached dwellings. Overall lot

occupancy would be 39%, well within the 60% lot occupancy permitted in the R-5-B

zone.

e. Floor Area Ratio: A maximum FAR of 3.0 is permitted within the R-5-B (PUD) and the

application requests an FAR of 3.9 for the senior apartment building. Similar to the relief

requested for rear yard (see “c” above), this relief is impacted by the location of the

property line with the proposed private park to the south.

f. Loading: Regulations require a 30-foot and 55-foot berth for each multi-family building,

a 100 square foot and a 200 square foot platform for each multi-family building, and one

20-foot service/delivery space for each building. Instead the applicant proposes to

provide two 30-foot loading berths, a 100 square-foot platform and one service delivery

space, to be shared by the two buildings. As the buildings are designed to share one

garage, the sharing of the loading facilities is logical and in an amount sufficient to

service those buildings.

g. Parking: Regulations require parking to be on the same lot as the building it serves. The

applicant proposes that the parking for the townhouses and semi-detached units not be

located on the lots with the houses, but on a separate lot to be dedicated as a private street



serving those dwellings. As no alley is proposed to run along the rear of the townhouses,

which would bring vehicular traffic closer to the rear yards of the existing dwellings on

Columbia Road, access to off-street parking on the individual townhouse lots is not

possible. Providing parking on the private street to the front of the townhouses would not

be out of character for the neighborhood as not all of the existing row houses have on-site

parking within their rear yards and on-street parking is common. All of the parking

spaces serving the townhouses are proposed as compact spaces, and the applicant needs

to request flexibility from Sec. 2115, Size of Parking Spaces.

h. Phasing: Applicants are required to file for building permits within two years of the

effective date of an order, and begin construction within three. In order to minimize

displacement of current residents the applicant proposes to construct the improvements in

two phases and not all at once. Therefore, the applicant requests six years from the

effective date of the order to file for permits, and seven years to begin construction.

i. Additional Areas of Flexibility: The applicant requests flexibility to vary the number of

residential units by up to 10 percent; vary the location and design of all interior

components; vary the location, number and arrangement of vehicular and bicycle

parking, but not below the minimum required; vary the sustainable design features

without reducing to below 50 points the Enterprise Green Communities rating standards;

vary the means and methods of achieving GAR stormwater retention volume and other

stormwater management and soil erosion and sediment control requirements; and to vary

the features, means and methods of achieving a GAR score of 0.40.

VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

As fully discussed in the OP setdown report dated July 15, 2016 (Exhibit 12), the application

would further major policies from various elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including the

Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Environmental Protection, Parks, Recreation, and Open

Space and Urban Design citywide elements, and the Mid-City Area Element.

Comprehensive Plan Maps

The proposal is not inconsistent with the Generalized Policy Map, which designates the site

Main Street Mixed Use Corridor along the Georgia Avenue frontage, and Neighborhood

Conservation Area along the western portion of the site. Main Street Mixed Use Corridors are

those where a “common feature is that they have a pedestrian-oriented environment with

traditional storefronts. Many have upper story residential or office uses. Any development or

redevelopment that occurs should support transit use and enhance the pedestrian environment.”

Neighborhood Conservation Areas are “[a]reas with very little vacant or underutilized land.

They are primarily residential in character.”



Generalized Policy Map

The Future Land Use Map primarily designates the site for Local Public Facilities, with the

westernmost portion of the site designated as Moderate Density Residential. The portion of the

site designated as Local Public Facilities is proposed to be developed with the two apartment

buildings. Local Public Facilities are those areas that, “[i]nclude land facilities occupied and

used by the District of Columbia government or other local government agencies.”

The FLUM also states under Guidelines for Using this Map, “This map does not show density or

intensity on institutional and local public sites. If a change in use occurs on these sites in the

future (for example, if a school becomes surplus or is redeveloped), the new designations should

be comparable in density or intensity to those in the vicinity…) In this case the proposed

apartment building on Georgia Avenue, at a height of 90 feet and an FAR of 5.8, would be

similar to other approved PUDs nearby, including ZC 13-10 (height 87 feet, FAR 5.95) and ZC

10-26 (height 90 feet, FAR 5.37) which have a designation of medium density residential /

moderate density commercial.

Future Land Use Map



Section 225 of the Comprehensive Plan text identifies corresponding land uses and zoning

districts as follows: Moderate

Density

Residential

This designation is used to define the

District’s row house neighborhoods, as well as its low-

rise garden apartment complexes. The designation also

applies to areas characterized by a mix of single family

homes, 2-4 unit buildings, row houses, and low-rise

apartment buildings. In some of the older inner city

neighborhoods with this designation, there may also be

existing multi-story apartments, many built decades

ago when the areas were zoned for more dense uses (or

were not zoned at all).

The R-3, R-4, R-5-A zone districts are

generally consistent with the Moderate

Density Residential category; the R-5-B

district and other zones may also apply in

some locations. (Sec 225.4)

Medium

Density

Commercial

This designation is used to define shopping and service

areas that are somewhat more intense in scale and

character than the moderate-density commercial areas.

Retail, office, and service businesses are the

predominant uses. Areas with this designation

generally draw from a citywide market area. Buildings

are generally larger and/or taller than those in moderate

density commercial areas but generally do not exceed

eight stories in height.

The corresponding Zone districts are

generally C-2-B, C-2-C, C-3-A, and C-3-B,

although other districts may apply. (Sec

225.10)

MoR (IZ) PUD

C-2-B 3.5 (4.2) 6.0

C-2-C 6.0 (7.2) 6.0

C-3-A 4.0 (4.8) 4.5

C-3-B 5.0 (6.0) 5.5

Mixed Use

areas

A variety of zoning designations are used in Mixed

Use areas, depending on the combination of uses,

densities, and intensities. Residential uses are permitted

in all of the commercial zones, Mixed Use areas may

have commercial zoning. The city has developed a

number of designations specifically for mixed use

areas. (Sec. 225.21)

Based on the text and guidelines for considering a change in land use OP concludes that the zone

districts and proposed project are comparable in density or intensity to those in the vicinity and

not inconsistent with the predominate land use and the Comprehensive Plan.

Park Morton Redevelopment Plan

As discussed in the OP setdown report (Exhibit 12), the proposal would further policy direction

of the Park Morton Redevelopment Initiative Plan, a small area plan adopted by Council in 2008.

The proposed development would create a mixed income community of low-rise and mid-rise

buildings, with units for sale and for rent.

VIII. PUBLIC BENEFITS AND AMENITIES

Section 2403.9 outlines “Public benefits and project amenities of the proposed PUD may be

exhibited and documented in any of the following or additional categories:



(a) Urban design, architecture, landscaping, or creation or preservation of open

spaces;

(b) Site planning, and efficient and economical land utilization;

(c) Effective and safe vehicular and pedestrian access, transportation management

measures, connections to public transit service, and other measures to mitigate

adverse traffic impacts;

(f) Housing and affordable housing;

(h) Environmental benefits, such as stormwater runoff controls and preservation of

open space or trees;

(i) Uses of special value to the neighborhood or the District of Columbia as a whole;

Urban Design, Architecture and Landscaping: The proposed development would provide for

a variety of housing types and affordability, ranging from townhouses adjacent to existing

row houses west of the site, to larger mixed-use buildings front on Georgia Avenue, similar

in scale to other existing and proposed buildings. Parking for the multi-family building

would be below grade, with on-street parking along the private street for the townhouses,

similar to the on-street parking permitted on Irving Street and Columbia Road. Landscaped

courtyards would be provided for the two multi-family buildings, with street trees and

sidewalks provided along the private street. A 4,545 square foot space fronting on Georgia

Avenue would be available as either community or retail space, depending upon demand,

which could contribute to the rejuvenation and activation of Georgia Avenue.

Effective and Safe Vehicular and Pedestrian Access: The design of the site would locate all

parking and loading access from the private street and provide access to the existing public

alley. Bicycle parking for the multi-family buildings would be located within the shared

parking garage. The private street would include sidewalks on both sides. The

Transportation Impact Study prepared for the application by Symmetra Design and dated

November 1, 2016, indicates that the development should not result in cut-through traffic.

For the residents of the apartment building or townhouses, the applicant’s Transportation

Demand Management plan proposes for the residents of the apartment building or

townhouses a one-year membership to either Capital Bikeshare or a car-share vendor, bike

helmets to new residents if requested, a $10.00 SmarTrip card to initial residents, and the

provision of two car-sharing spaces and bicycle repair room within the apartment building.

A TDM coordinator would be appointed by the management of the apartment building. All

TDM commitments would be posted on-line.

Housing and Affordable Housing: Seventy-four percent of the housing proposed for the site

would be either affordable or replacement public housing units, in excess of the eight to ten

percent required by Inclusionary Zoning. One third of the affordable units would be

replacement public housing for the life of the project so would have a very lot affordability

level, with another 38 percent affordable at sixty percent AMI, also for the life of the

project. Construction of this project as Phase 1 of the redevelopment of the Park Morton

Public Housing Project would allow residents to relocate nearby in new housing, without

having to be relocated multiple times or outside of the neighborhood.



Employment and Training Opportunities: The applicant proposes to enter into a First Source

Employment Agreement with the Department of Employment Services and will meet the

HUD Section 3 requirements.

Environmental Benefits: The proposal would provide new landscaping, tree planting, energy

efficient buildings and green roofs on the mixed-use buildings. It is proposed to be certified

under the Enterprise Green Communities standards. The applicant should continue to work

with DOEE regarding the provision of solar panels, especially on the market rate

townhouses.

IX. AGENCY REFERRALS

No comments were received from other District agencies.

No other agencies provided comments on the subject application. DDOT is expected to provide

comments separately.

X. COMMUNITY COMMENTS

ANC 1A, at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 14, 2016, approved a resolution in

support of the application.

Prior the filing of this application, community engagement meetings were held from October

2015 through March 2016, including meetings organized by Park View Community Partners,

DMPED and the DC Housing Authority.

A request for party status was filed in support of the application by the Park Morton Residents

Council (Exhibits 37 & 38), representing the residents of the Park Morton housing complex.

Two request for party status were filed in opposition to the application one by a group of owner-

residents within 200 feet of Bruce Monroe Park (Exhibit 36) and the other by a group named

Georgia Avenue Corridor Neighbors (Exhibit 39).

JS/sjmAICP

Documents

MEMORANDUM TO: District of ... - DC Office of Planning · 28/11/2016 · 1100 4th Street, S.W., Suite E650, Washington, DC 20024 phone 202-442-7600, fax 202-442-7638 planning.dc.gov